Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-O Data (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "keep" opinion is unconvincing. "Unremarkable" is indeed a reason for deletion if this means that no reliable sources have remarked on the topic, which means we have no sources on which to base a verifiable article.  Sandstein  12:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I-O Data
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable electronics manufacturer. Significant RS coverage not found; the sources presented at the last AfD are not convincing. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH.

First AfD closed as no consensus in Aug 2017. NCORP has been tightened since then, so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * keep "Unremarkable" isn't a valid reason for deletion. Looking at the Japanese article, this is a company of sufficient size and revenue that they would pass WP:N. They might not be well known, famous or particularly innovative, but we don't set our notability bar that high. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable; trivial. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. PR piece without depth. Kierzek (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — FR+ 04:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. In the first AfD, User:Michitaro unearthed a slew of ostensibly good references for the article; none of those have been added in the subsequent ~10 months. If Michitaro (or another Japanese speaker) would re-examine those sources and (if they're any good) work them into the article, this could be a WP:HEY situation.  A  Train talk 22:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nom's comment: I did not find the sources from the first AfD compelling; that's why I nominated the article. In any case, nearly a year since the first AfD is plenty of chances. It's time to let this articles go. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.